9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Commissioner not denying that the cause of action as regards FIR No.0008 lodged against the petitioner on 05.01.2019 at Police Station Kanina, District Mahendergarh, is the same cause as initiated by the Directorate General, GST (Intelligence) on 07.09.2018, this petition is allowed to the extent that as regards the provisions of the HGST Act, 2017, the FIR is hereby quashed; but with it made absolutely clear that as regards the offences alleged to have been committed in terms of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B of the IPC, such proceedings would continue and be taken to their logical conclusion by the investigating agency in Haryana and the competent court to which the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is submitted. The petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. The contention therefore is that in terms of Sections 6 (2) (b) of both, the CGST Act, 2017 and the HGST Act, 2017, once proceedings under one particular Act have already been initiated, i.e. either under the State Act or under the Central Act, then similar proceedings would not be initiated on essentially the same cause of action by the proper (designated) officer under the other Act. Mr. Sanghi points to the affidavit dated 30.03.2022 filed by the Excise Taxation Commissioner, Haryana in a connected petition, i.e. CRM-M-20024-2021 (in view of the fact that all petitions have been heard together), wherein it is stated as follows in paragraph 4 and 5 thereof:- 4. That as per the directi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Intelligence, in which file No.391/INT/DGGI/Hqrs./2018 on 07.09.2018 has been referred to, with learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 [Director General of GST (Intelligence)], obviously not refuting that factual aspect. In view of the above, with even the Excise Taxation Commissioner not denying that the cause of action as regards FIR No.0008 lodged against the petitioner on 05.01.2019 at Police Station Kanina, District Mahendergarh, is the same cause as initiated by the Directorate General, GST (Intelligence) on 07.09.2018, this petition is allowed to the extent that as regards the provisions of the HGST Act, 2017, the FIR is hereby quashed; but with it made absolutely clear that as regards the offences alleged to have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2021, the petitioner seeks the concession of 'regular bail' under the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., upon FIR no.07, dated 09.01.2019, having been registered at Police Station City Ratia, District Fatehabad, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of the IPC. The petitioners had been earlier admitted to interim bail vide orders passed on different dates in each case, on the ground that their role in the entire scam of allegedly cheating the public exchequer of Rs.660 crores, was only to the extent that their identities were used by the prime accused, i.e. Anupam Singla etc., and for that purpose they were paid Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. Upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e only used as 'tools' by the prime accused (Anupam Singla) on the lure of some amounts of money, to take part in the entire scam. He submits that the present petitioner, i.e. Sheetal Garg, was actively involved in creating bogus firms which had illegally availed of input tax credit (ITC) in active collusion with Anupam Singla, and therefore he does not deserve to be treated on the same footing as those who have been admitted to interim bail. Mr. Sanghi submits that the aforesaid allegation is entirely on the basis of a disclosure statement allegedly made in police custody by co-accused, i.e. Anupam Singla and Suresh, as also on an alleged confession made in police custody by the petitioner. Adjourned to 12.09.2022. The SP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
